Speaking of high ISO and cropping, I shot this at 1/500s, f/2.8, ISO 5000 and still had to brighten in post to about +1.00 exposure. There is some detail loss, but not bad at 40% NR. This gym is just awful. I have since changed to the 135L and now shoot at f/2.2 instead of 2.8 and it's helped with noise in post, but the keeper rate is slightly lower due to DOF and AF speed.

bdun....did you shoot this in jpeg? are you shooting sports in raw or jpeg in general?

That particular gym is so dim, I can't shoot in JPG, I have to shoot in RAW. Even at 1/500, f/2.8, ISO 5000, I still had to raise exposure by +1.00 which ultimately led to the deterioting of the IQ, but since this only went in a newspaper, it doesn't matter. I typically shoot in RAW if I have time to process, if not then JPEG has to do.

Just a quick photo here explaining. This is the exact same gym some time later, and this is the exact end of the floor in the same very pitiful lighting situation. However, instead of using the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS at f/2.8, 1/500, ISO 5000, I used the 135 f/2L, f/2.2, ISO 5000. In post I still had to go +0.40 exposure, but much better.

Just a quick photo here explaining. This is the exact same gym some time later, and this is the exact end of the floor in the same very pitiful lighting situation. However, instead of using the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS at f/2.8, 1/500, ISO 5000, I used the 135 f/2L, f/2.2, ISO 5000. In post I still had to go +0.40 exposure, but much better.

Just a quick photo here explaining. This is the exact same gym some time later, and this is the exact end of the floor in the same very pitiful lighting situation. However, instead of using the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS at f/2.8, 1/500, ISO 5000, I used the 135 f/2L, f/2.2, ISO 5000. In post I still had to go +0.40 exposure, but much better.

bdun...have you given thought to the sigma 85 1.4?

Yes. But only if it performs better than my 85 f/1.8 at f/2.2. I don't shoot wider than f/2.2 in sports because of DOF, especially with a shorter lens with an 85mm vs. a 135mm. With the 200 f/2L, I'll shoot at f/2, but only side shots where I can focus on the players' faces. Do you know if it performs better? Thanks.

Just a quick photo here explaining. This is the exact same gym some time later, and this is the exact end of the floor in the same very pitiful lighting situation. However, instead of using the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS at f/2.8, 1/500, ISO 5000, I used the 135 f/2L, f/2.2, ISO 5000. In post I still had to go +0.40 exposure, but much better.

bdun...have you given thought to the sigma 85 1.4?

Yes. But only if it performs better than my 85 f/1.8 at f/2.2. I don't shoot wider than f/2.2 in sports because of DOF, especially with a shorter lens with an 85mm vs. a 135mm. With the 200 f/2L, I'll shoot at f/2, but only side shots where I can focus on the players' faces. Do you know if it performs better? Thanks.

at f2 to f2.8 this lens is stunning IMO <f2 the canon 85 is a tad sharper but at f2 to f2.8 the sigma is razor sharpI felt noticably sharper than the 85L and at f2 the sigma is sharper than the 70-200 f2.8 is at f2.8

here is a photo from the weekend i was covering a world title kickboxing fight for my local newspaper,this gym is terribly lit with mixed lighting but i got some nice images.1/200 sec f3.5 iso 10000WKA world title kickboxing fight by Lseriesglass, on Flickr

Just a quick photo here explaining. This is the exact same gym some time later, and this is the exact end of the floor in the same very pitiful lighting situation. However, instead of using the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS at f/2.8, 1/500, ISO 5000, I used the 135 f/2L, f/2.2, ISO 5000. In post I still had to go +0.40 exposure, but much better.

Gotta try my PS edit trick to get rid of that yellow haze - edit in PS, single adjustment layer - camera / cooling filter set at only 10-20% opacity - this will bring skin tones back to more natural.

Also, I use the 135 at f2 from the sidelines and don't have issues with DOF usually. The extra stop helps keep ISO (noise) down.

I will try your filter. However, I don't have time to do this for publication/gallery time. I can do this for the university however, because I have time for RAW processing. The other question I have, is that your photo looks a bit underexposed. Is this intentional? Thanks.

Just a quick photo here explaining. This is the exact same gym some time later, and this is the exact end of the floor in the same very pitiful lighting situation. However, instead of using the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS at f/2.8, 1/500, ISO 5000, I used the 135 f/2L, f/2.2, ISO 5000. In post I still had to go +0.40 exposure, but much better.

Gotta try my PS edit trick to get rid of that yellow haze - edit in PS, single adjustment layer - camera / cooling filter set at only 10-20% opacity - this will bring skin tones back to more natural.

Also, I use the 135 at f2 from the sidelines and don't have issues with DOF usually. The extra stop helps keep ISO (noise) down.

Ain't that the truth... I won't say I intentionally underexposed that shot, but for the website site / small prints, I tolerate that degree of underexposure.I saw one solution I won't try though - I was at a game last week, and I saw a 'pro' from the local newspaper setting up 4 flashes in each corner of the court and he was remote triggering them all with every shot!! Very distracting for me, can't imagine how the players handled it. I wanted to have a seizure by halftime myself. When I saw his shots (c/w mine) I realized it didn't help - but it didn't help he was shooting a Nikon either